The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. On September 2013, the prosecutor charged the Defendant with indecent acts by compulsion by compulsion by compulsion, such as: (a) the Defendant stated that he would injure the victim’s breasts; (b) the victim’s breasts are rhyd and turd in the victim’s panty line; and (c) the victim’s fingers were collected and knicked on the part of the victim’s panty line; and (d) the victim’s fingers were knicked.

The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, committed an indecent act on the part of the Defendant as “a assault or intimidation to the extent that it would make it difficult for the Defendant to resist the victim.”

In accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it was judged that it is difficult to recognize that the victim committed an indecent act by exercising the force of force to the extent that it is practically impossible to resist the victim.

The prosecutor appealed the judgment of the court below on the ground of mistake of facts, and changed the facts charged of the said indecent act by compulsion into the primary facts charged at the trial prior to remand, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the ancillary facts as to the Defendant’s indecent act going beyond the scope of safe and safeness to the fact that the Defendant, as the principal officer of the “Crowns Association” located in the Sinpo City B, would prejudice the victim who is the believers of the above church protected by the Defendant, and the judgment prior to remand was permitted.

The trial prior to the remand determined that the appeal by the prosecutor on the primary facts charged against the defendant is groundless, and that the defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment, 40 hours of order to complete the program, etc. in determining the defendant guilty of the ancillary facts charged (any indecent act committed in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes).

On July 5, 2013, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of final appeal before remand, and the court of final appeal is the defendant on July 5, 2013.